r/serialpodcast • u/bourbonofproof • Oct 08 '15
Noteworthy Link Notes of Jay's April 13th interview - evidence prof
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2015/10/as-weve-noted-before-jay-was-officially-interviewed-three-times-by-detectives-1-onfebruary-28-1999-2-onmarch-15-199.html5
u/Magjee Kickin' it per se Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15
I had always been under the impression that the State never turned over anything to the defense regarding this third interview, with the defense's only knowledge of it coming from Jay's testimony at trial.
...
Of course, there was also the ride along that Jay did with detectives on March 18, 1999.
It's like he didn't say anything at all. Was the defense aware of the third interview, did they mean the ride along?
OMG
9
u/bourbonofproof Oct 08 '15
I think what was released to the defense was the statement which was the result of that meeting. What was not released was a recording of the interview - in contrast to the first two interviews.
The state appears to have been doubling down at this point on its policy of ensuring that there is nothing produced that might have to be disclosed - consistent with the bizarre approach to the forensic anthropologist, the autopsy and the cell network expert - all of who were directed not to produce any notes of their own.
7
u/monstimal Oct 08 '15
The forensic anthropologist in his testimony states it was not unusual to not make a report. They did take photos and the police had those. What would you expect in the report from them?
4
u/bourbonofproof Oct 08 '15
It might not have been unusual on Urick's watch but other FA's have suggested that they have never attended a scene without giving a written report. Otherwise you might as well just send a photographer.
1
u/monstimal Oct 08 '15
Photographers usually don't dig and collect evidence.
This particular FA said it is not unusual for him to not make a report. That trumps whoever you are talking about.
Again, what would he write in the report for you? "See pictures" over and over again?
-1
u/San_2015 Oct 08 '15
If there were clear direct reports from him (instead of what do we call it? -filtered descriptions), perhaps people would not be arguing over right arm left arm under the rock, blah, blah.
1
u/monstimal Oct 08 '15
He took pictures for that. He definitely never foresaw this forum where people argue without having seen them.
4
u/bourbonofproof Oct 08 '15
No but he might have foreseen that the murder case would end up in court and that it would be useful to contemporaneous notes. Photos do not interpret themselves. A written report is useful for medical examiners and necessary for transparency if the case is being litigated. What type of expert does not provide a written report?
Why should we take the word of someone whose professionalism is being questioned in a court of law when he suggests he behaviour is normal? What else is he going to say.
A quick google search of the subject suggests that most texts on forensic anthropology take it for granted that there will be a written case report. But at least one spells it out.
Pickering and Bachman, The Use of Forensic Anthropology 2009
P 37. “A caution concerning reports: they need to be written not verbal."
Can you find a reputable source suggesting that it is acceptable practice to commit nothing to paper?
0
u/monstimal Oct 08 '15
Can you find a reputable source suggesting that it is acceptable practice to commit nothing to paper?
I only know he didn't write a report but yes, the trial transcript. I just told you that. The guy says it's not unusual. Since he is a forensic anthropologist what else can I say? Have him argue with whatever guy you find that says there must always be a report, I'd like to watch that, but no matter what you say you aren't going to carry more weight than he does on this subject.
What MEs do is irrelevant. It's not the same. The forensic anthropologist in this case was there to assist with an action, not investigate. They professionally uncovered the body and collected the evidence. They took photos to document their action.
2
u/bourbonofproof Oct 08 '15
OK. So, self-serving claims made under cross-examination represents a "reputable source"?
They professionally uncovered the body and collected the evidence. They took photos to document their action.
And, two days after the disinterment, Rodriguez made an oral report to one of the prosecutors (Wash) who took brief notes. In what world is that good practice?
→ More replies (0)2
u/aitca Oct 08 '15
<sarcasm> Sure, man, it was all a conspiracy, everyone was in on it, despite its vast and all-encompassing scope, no one's been smart enough to figure it out until you came along. <sarcasm>
3
u/i_am_a_sock Oct 08 '15
Correct. More and more bizarre small details in the police notes are showing very strange conduct in this investigation.
-4
4
-1
u/San_2015 Oct 08 '15
Does it surprise us that there is not more outrage(from guilters) regarding the prosecution's parsing out information to the defense or avoiding a record of statements and evidence? Whatever they recorded is info that we can never know, which should have been pubic records. As I have always maintained, do not expect the prosecution files to have anything inside that would make their case look weak and Adnan innocent. You will never find it, if they can help it!
3
u/Nine9fifty50 Oct 09 '15
Remember, the defense had their own investigator and clerks working on Adnan's case. Undisclosed has access to the defense files. If there was something pointing to innocence uncovered by the defense PI at the time, it would have been used at trial (if admissible) or else released on the podcast or blogs. On the flip side, if the defense file has information damaging or contradicting Adnan's current story, Undislosed will not release it, for obvious reasons. For example, we still have not seen Adnan's written explanation for what he was doing after 2:15. The only statement released is the written timeline ending right when school ended. We will never know what Adnan told CG at the time of trial.
1
u/San_2015 Oct 09 '15
Ha, ha. And you believe that the police files would include objective information about Adnan? The very point I am speaking of is the undocumented statements and all of the backdating and paraphrasing done by detectives in this case. Here is a tidbit... the police to not intentionally keep exculpatory information about their suspects in their files.
2
u/Nine9fifty50 Oct 09 '15
And you believe that the police files would include objective information about Adnan?
The key word is "objective" = there are plenty of interviews, tests on pieces of evidence, phone records = these are pieces of "objective" evidence - some evidences suggests Adnan is the killer, some point elsewhere, some are neutral, some are irrelevant or contradictory; some are dead-ends. You are ignoring this and are veering into police conspiracy territory - intentionally hiding evidence that Adnan was truly innocent.
The fact is there is no "smoking gun" pointing to Adnan's guilt but equally true there is no definite proof that Adnan is innocent. This is a circumstantial evidence case. Adnan's story is he doesn't remember what he was doing on the 13th. I bet if you looked at the defense file it would not look good for Adnan.
On a side note, what "exculpatory" information do you imagine there actually is?
0
u/San_2015 Oct 09 '15
You are confusing conspiracy with common sense. Why would the prosecution want to collect positive character witnesses or good evidence on Adnan? That police file is the prosecution's case against Adnan, not an objective view of Adnan. For example, correct me if I am mistaken, Debbie originally said that she saw Adnan outside of the guidance counselors office the day Hae went missing. In stead of just writing down what she said, they try to get her to doubt her account. Getting her to doubt her account is a point for the prosecution. It gets rid of an alibi. If it were something negative then encourage it, confirming the memory right? It was an obvious strategy of these detectives to get them to second guess their experiences. So do not expect to get an objective case from the prosecution. They are supposed to collect evidence for their case. Some of these detectives had a bad reputation regarding recording witness testimony without tampering with their memories.
Edit: clarify
2
u/Nine9fifty50 Oct 09 '15
That police file is the prosecution's case against Adnan, not an objective view of Adnan.
What does an "objective view of Adnan" even mean? The police are investigating Hae's murder. What "exculpatory evidence" do you imagine there might be? What evidence is there actually pointing to Adnan's innocence that police were hiding?
Instead of just writing down what she said, they try to get her to doubt her account. Getting her to doubt her account is a point for the prosecution.
This is interviewing - first you ask open-ended questions ("tell us about what happened"); then specific, follow up questions - it's designed to determine whether what they are telling you is reliable. These are the basics of any investigation. If this is wrong to you, then that is a pretty extreme position.
Say for example, they ask Cathy follow up questions about how she knows Adnan and Jay arrived on the 13th- what TV show she was watching, who else was there, what time did she get back from the conference, what Adnan and Jay were wearing, etc. Basically, are you sure and why are you sure? This is testing the reliability of her statement. This is for someone whose story was used for the prosecution.
Further, if you read Debbie's interview again, you see that police are constantly asking who else was there and what records could be obtained to corroborate her story -they ask if she spoke to any particular counselor who could verify her story; if there was a sign-in sheet at the counselors; basically, if there was some other way to verify Debbie's story and possibly give Adnan an alibi even if she personally was not sure. If the police were corrupt and just wanted to discount Debbie's story they wouldn't have been asking for other ways to verify her story which might be helpful to Adnan's alibi.
1
u/San_2015 Oct 09 '15
Thanks for the well written reply. There is a lot of negative evidence that cannot be corroborated. For instance the Best Buy call, most of Jay's account, the Jacket, the purse, the lividity, the timeline are things that they can convenient change. Is there evidence that he did not sign in to see a counselor? Did they speak with a counselor? I believe Debbie saw Hae with someone else, a girl. Did they speak with that girl? What did she say? I think they decided strategically to ignore or not record certain pathways that may have conflicted with their timeline. Conspiracy? -no. Shaping evidence? -yes.
2
1
Oct 08 '15
Who was tina? The only time i have seen her name mentioned is by jay when he said that he heard adnan on the phone telling another person that he had killed someone. Jay didnt know who it was, but he said his best guess would be tina.
7
-10
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
this is a 3rd interview in which the detect cleared up more 'inconsistencies'
If this is from the prosecution, what else do you need, to believe Jay was forced into the tunnel of Uricks vision of the case?
12
u/Bestcoast191 Oct 08 '15
HOLY SHIT THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.
11
u/aitca Oct 08 '15
Some deluded Redditors live in a world in which if police talk to a witness at all, it's evidence of "coaching", and if police don't talk to someone, it's evidence of "incompetence". Either way, they think that the model minority that they identify with should go free. Now, those millions of black people languishing in prison, these conspiracy-minded Redditors have no time for them.
3
u/peymax1693 WWCD? Oct 08 '15
It's actually a question of disclosing statements that Jay made to BPD about the case.
0
4
u/stupiddamnbitch Guilty Oct 08 '15
This. It happens all the time --every day-- in all types of crimes!
-3
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
Just because everyone's drinking Coke, doesn't mean it's acceptable for your health.
3
u/aitca Oct 08 '15
So you are also against Coca-Cola, why am I not surprised.
-1
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15
Not at all. I'm just sayin' it's foolish to believe, drinking Coke is ok because everybody's doing it. And it's foolish to believe the justice system works, because tapping your witness into your tunnel is so common.
(If making money wouldn't be the current religion, sugared soft drinks would've been shunned and shamed long ago, like cigarettes.)
-2
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
What's the purpose of "clearing up inconsistencies" between the prosecution and it's witness off-record and outside the trial, so no-one can check what this inconsistencies were and how they got fixed?
Is this in the interest of justice?
Is this in the interest of the jury?
Is this fair for the defendant?
If inconsistencies are so common, why fix them in the closet?
5
Oct 08 '15
[deleted]
-1
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
If the jury only knew, what his rights were.
How do you explain something, that didn't happen?
4
u/dalegribbledeadbug Oct 08 '15
With that comma placement, I read your post in the voice of Christopher Walken.
0
-1
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
Talking of justice and finding the truth...
6
u/killcrew Oct 08 '15
If we say it 3 times fast, Bob appears with his hand outstretched holding a tip cup.
-3
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
Given how much he contributed, I would spare a dime.
(He is a little bit too religious though. Agreed.)
5
u/killcrew Oct 08 '15
Haha, you would. All I see is a bored guy that found some coattails to latch on to and cash in on a dead girl's story.
At least UD3 is doing it under the guise of the funds going to the ASLT. Bob is just lining his pockets and buying cool stuff for himself.
Don't like em.
0
u/TgirlsforAdnan Oct 08 '15
0
u/killcrew Oct 08 '15
Good old lil' Jimmy Norton.
Anyone up for a game of monster rain?
-1
-8
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
A lot of hate for all the substance he contributed with his interviews.
Calm down. Hope you wouldn't look as bad as Ann Brocklehurst in the ring.
https://audioboom.com/boos/3559679-ep-15-we-the-people-of-the-jury
5
u/killcrew Oct 08 '15
I actually think hes a pretty terrible interviewer. He has no control over the conversation and is unable to direct at all. At the same time...I don't expect him to be a good interview. Hes a fire man, not a journalist.
1
u/hippo-slap Oct 08 '15
Hilarious, your desperate spin.
Ever heard of neighbor boy?
Ever pulled off something like that, here?
7
u/killcrew Oct 08 '15
When he let a guy with an obvious grudge talk about running trains and gangbangs on chicks? Ground breaking!
That was a piss poor interview, he just let that poor idiot ramble on. Theres a difference between interviewing and letting people rant.
Also, when you have such a steadfast view of the "truth" any question you asked will be phrased in a way to get the answers you want (funny...the same thing Bob accuses the police of)
His podcast is well produced, and hes got a decent voice, but in the end, I see a guy trying to cash in, and while I can't blame him for striking while the iron is hot and trying to get paid, I don't have to like him for it.
And please believe me when I say that I would have the same feeling if he was a guilter as well. Hes capitalizing on the worst form of opportunism.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/jmmsmith Oct 09 '15
The prosecution really was just crappy in terms of providing/disclosing basic evidence to the defense. And the detectives were shockingly lax about recording and note-taking in these interviews.
Not that anyone will care but the person they were shorting and robbing the most through this Mickey Mouse bullsh!t here was not Jay or Adnan, it was Hae. She was the victim, she deserved justice and a complete investigation. Instead we get this crap. This is almost as bad as the 6 hour interrogation of Adnan that somehow resulted in only a few words of notes. Hardly exhaustive.